Must've Been That Mojo Boogie

[Kettricken]

So when Johnson writes in Peaks and Valleys that

"if you want to have fewer Valleys, avoid comparisons. If you enjoy what's good about the moment, you feel more like you are on a Peak."

he's really getting at this subjectivity of the truth in the moment.

That, I think, is similar to watch @Gypsy and @Kalni were alluding to in re: the past. When you sort-of wallow in the past -- which is what I think @Gypsy was really talking about -- you're avoiding the Truth of the moment. You're dragging that Past forward into the Present, in other words, contaminating it. That's the opposite of detaching (or at a minimum counter-detaching behavior) because you're predicating today's evaluation of today on today's evaluation of yesterday.

I'm going quote-crazy here, since I already posted this to someone else's thread, but I'm going to slap it up here too, 'cause I think it is just so excellent. Michelle is warning against exactly what you are talking about -- letting the past contaminate the present.

"If you anticipate a negative response from your mate such as, "I know he will be angry at me when I walk through the door," or "I know he won't accept the idea I have," or "I'm convinced we'll have a fight at this party tonight," you probably change *your* behavior in subtle and not so subtle ways. As a result, you may inadvertently trigger the very response you are hoping to avoid. Your tension -- the way you walk, look and speak -- may provide cues that signal hostility without your even knowing it.

To avoid setting yourself up for failure, ask yourself: "How would I act differently if I expected ______________ (him to be pleased to see me, her to agree with me, or the evening to go well)? Be as specific as possible. Perhaps another example will help.

A woman admitted that she was anticipating a fight with her husband when he returned home from work that evening. I asked her to predict the sequence of events after his arrival. She said that when he entered the house she would be making dinner. He would walk into the kitchen and she would avoid his eyes, waiting for him to greet her first. She anticipated feeling tense and, in an effort to calm herself and avoid conflict, she would continue making dinner, paying little attention to him.

Then I asked how she behaves when she's had a great day and is eager to see her husband. Without hesitation she responded, "I greet him at the door with a hug and a kiss. I ask about his day and tell him about mine. Then we relax for ten mintues or so; he reads the paper and I read the mail. He tells me that I hum when I'm happy, so I probably hum when I'm done reading the mail."

You can see how different the backdrop for the getting-along scene is as compared to the backdrop for the showdown. The scenes are the contexts which influence moods, feelings, perceptions and, last but not least, actions. I suggested that this woman set the scene for cooperative interactions by acting as if she expected cooperation. She did and, much to her surprise, they had a very pleasant evening together.

Although the woman in the above case wasn't totally convinced that the evening would go smoothly when she agreed to do the task, she committed herself to acting as if it would, and thereby accomplished her goal. Many people say that they appreciate the "act as if....." task, saying they feel more in control of their lives because they recognize that feelings needn't dictate actions or outcomes." -- Michele Weiner-Davis, "Divorce Busting"

This, I think, is what I find somewhat dicey about the DBology -- "figure out" what you did "wrong" smacks to me of retrospectively evaluating the Past and using that evaluation to reconstruct the Present.

Dunno. Exposure to new information can allow you to productively reevaluate the past AND the present with tools you just didn't have access to in the past. To use the example of the 5 LLs, if you now realize that (1) you always love(d) your wife but (2) you had been expressing your love largely through (say) physical touch although (3) she finds quality time the most meaningful *to her* ... her core preference is not likely to have changed. Therefore, if you were to "correct what you did wrong" by making quality time a priority in the present, that would still likely be meaningful to her (if she was open enough to you to recognize/appreciate any changes at all). OTOH, this is also valid:

What I find challenging to some aspects of DBology in all that is this notion that one should "identify what works" -- as if one can correctly assess the causal relationship. I 180 and do B instead of A; WAW's behavioral responses to A, which are negative towards me, change. Therefore, sez I, by doing B I have done something "that works."

But correlation isnae causality, said Professor McStats. What if B is every bit as irritating as A, and WAW's behavioral change came from some unknown C (OM, for example)? Whither the DB'ing?

I think that's a very reasonable assessment and ultimately evidence that you probably can't attain a relationship where both people are consistently getting their needs met without clear, honest communication on both sides. Perhaps DBing as you lay it out above is a shot in the dark; even if you make a bunch of changes and it *works*, it may not mean what you think it means. Probably still better than putting the same ol' garbage in and getting the same ol' garbage out, though.

To add yet another wrinkle, it may not even matter so much *what* you do. If your spouse isn't so far gone/immersed in an affair that *any* attempt at positive change pisses them off .... it may really touch their heart to see you extending yourself to try *something*, anything, particularly if it's obvious that you are willing to push your comfort zone/business as usual to try to meet their needs. Thus, change X may be "good" because effective, but "bad" in that it isn't the magic bullet; you're getting cred for the effort, not the content.

But the continuing challenge is that one's subjective Truth not be indexed -- tempting as it is to do -- to a subjective evaluation of the presumptive "Truth" we believe WAS wants to see. In other words, we must do what is True for us, not what we believe WAS would interpret as True for us and therefore true for WAS.

Yup.

I like knocking my head against these walls, too.

Heavens above, woman, shut up already!!!